Wesleyan Quadrilateral

To select members of the household of faith, regarding matters which touch the nature of our faith, namely the distinction between prudential and transformational Christians.

This is another (improved) version of the developing thesis of the work of God in the world as depicted by the vision of John Wesley (and with special appreciation of the conceptual framework of Immanuel Kant). I see a great vision arising which is thoroughly Wesleyan in spirit and Kantian in concept and invite all readers to join in and help, also through criticism and rectification.

There are two branches stemming from Jesus (the root) through the disciples (the trunk): the "written" scriptures (and the commentaries), which make up a mighty limb, and the enlivened or "living" scriptures (or experience) which is another (and more powerful!) branch (which is essentially a continuation of the trunk) extending upward toward heaven (and down through the ages). These two are in a reciprocal relationship, i.e., the scriptures serve as additional inspiration leading to additional experience; and the personal experience serves as validation of the scriptures and the tradition and leads to commentaries on them, i.e., additions to the tradition. {FN 2}

In other words, while I (Philip, the author of this essay) am originally enticed into an investigation of the Christian story through the inspiration of my (own, earthly) father and his dealings in life (and which [inspiration] will vary with different people), the scriptures give me a portrait of this same spirit in the reported person of Jesus, which (picture) will have been authenticated by the same early church (people seeing the apostles) whose spirit is also (now) found in me, after having first found a preview in my father.

And thus the scriptural portrait supports the apparent fact in the life of my father (it could have been a friend, a roommate, i.e., someone who lives a principled life) at the same time that my father's life gives credence to the portrait of Jesus, i.e., that it is a true portrait, i.e., that it does indeed resemble the man himself. {FN 8]

The next step then is in the validation of the portrait of my father and of Jesus (and all saints between) in my own life as I see myself both wanting to be like Christ with increasing fervor and then also actually becoming more like him, at least as can be revealed in the circumstances of my own life and in the experiences of how I relate to those circumstances according to the model of Christ.

In the diagram above we see three of the four sides of Wesley's quadrilateral; we see the scriptures (on the left) and the personal experiences (on the right). These personal experiences can also be conceived to encompass the tradition, i.e., the experiences and thinking of the church "fathers" as well as the experiences of all sorts of people from peasant to pope who have been possessed of the Holy Spirit, e.g., the life and experience of Francis of Assisi as well as Thomas Aquinas, etc., etc.

The fourth side, and which might even be considered as the foundation, is reason or rationality itself, and not only as the source of experience and science in general, but also and more specifically as the formal repository of the voice of God as expressed in the conscience, and whereby we are kept from falling into sheer subjectivism. I am speaking of the moral law of God which so amazed Immanuel Kant, i.e., "the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me!" {FN 10}

The story accounting for the miracle of this moral law is given in the stories concerning the Garden and the fall of man from the pristine state of grace. For here, by virtue of the knowledge that we all receive (like original sin, one might almost say) through the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (the occasion for our first sin), and which is thoroughly validated through pure reason alone (albeit when applied to practical situations, but still abstracted from the subjectively valid needs of any individual) per Kant's Critiques in the form of the moral law and the categorical imperative, we are already positioned to recognize the voice of God when heshe speaks to us (as heshe did to me, personally, in the fact of my father's life). This recognition (of right and wrong), though dark and confused perhaps at first, is part and parcel of our rational psyche and therefore indispensable to our very being as rational creatures (by means of which alone even language and objective communication between beings is possible). Without it we would not have any way of distinguishing the moral from the immoral and the amoral in the stories of the bible, and would think the destruction of the infants of Jericho right and that of the infants of Bethlehem as wrong for no other reason than that is the clear suggestion of the bible writers. {FN 1}

And so now we can grasp the elements of Wesley's quadrilateral altogether now as a unity: scripture, tradition, reason and experience, all working together reciprocally to fashion the "Christ in me" such that I too can speak authoritatively with regard to right and wrong and good and evil, and of the power of God, for the same spirit that moves me, moved the bible writers and the line of Christians from Christ to myself, and all under a rubric of rationality and sense.

The critical consideration for us today, however, is the recognition that the personal experience is the work of the Holy Spirit in the world and that the scriptures merely report of the experiences of the earliest hanger-ons (as a German might express it, = adherents) but which is continued to this very day. {FN 5}

If we do not accept the notion of real transformation and the subsequent experience (promised of God and attested to by countless thousands, including this writer), then we are stuck forever in trying to figure out precisely what it is that the "insane monster in the sky" {FN 6} wants in order for us to avoid the "heart ache and thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to". Such people (moral materialists, we might call them) were described by Kant as in a state of tutelage, i.e., they needed constantly to be told what to do, be it by the scriptures, by the pope or even by the parents. This is the God/emperor or God/Führer model. But the Holy Spirit which possesses the soul of a man will not be instructed any more today that heshe was in the life of Christ or Paul (read Romans 14) {FN 3}

In brief: Christ comes! He shows the cost of God-likeness! Many (the apostles) are enthralled and ask for the Holy Spirit (which "accompanied" Jesus). This spirit is conveyed in response to this (informed) petition. These enlivened or quickened souls now become very much like Jesus and speak authoritatively and in accordance with their understanding (many, like Peter, thought [erroneously] one had to become a Jew in order to reflect the Holy Spirit). They go out and tell the story. One of the ways they tell the story is through the gospels and the epistles which are collected by the developing church as a repository of truth, i.e., the stories of those with first hand contact with Jesus physically (I count Paul's brief encounter as physical, for it was at least empirical). But the scriptures are merely incidental, with this exception: they provide an unchanging benchmark of the experience of those touched by God, i.e., the experience of the transformation of the heart must also find a counterpart in the scriptures in order to be authentic. But the presentation is not to be of an "untouchable" Jesus, but one who can be emulated in every way, albeit always from the state of sin, for it is only from sin that we (born in sin) can first come to Jesus. Thus we can never claim our own righteousness, but only that of God. But that righteousness is real and not merely legalistic (like per chance thinking of an American as being one who was born within the geographical confines of the United States, even though his loyalties might be elsewhere).

With regard to the Old Testament we can now make a similar evolution, as it were. God works to shape a particular document and a particular psyche such that the boy Jesus will be so fashioned that he will be awakened to his role as the Son of God. Thus Mary and Joseph are really the products of the Jewish history as recorded in the scriptures and the Talmud and the thinking and attitudes of the Jewish people. The contrast is Mary and Sarah. While Sara laughed at God, Mary bowed low in adoration and was perfectly obedient, so much so that (the infant) Jesus was able to spy in her that which resonated the God within himself and which brought it (God) forth, in what must surely be the greatest miracle that could ever be (with the possible exception of the time when the dead body of Jesus in the tomb "hears" the voice of God saying "Come forth" on that Easter morning!) {FN 4}

Progression of Influence and Inspiration

So then it is the personal experience that is authoritative, when fashioned in truth, and it is to this that scripture alludes, however darkly. We can hear Francis of Assisi saying once again: "Oh let yourselves become living stones in the temple of God!"

PS I am sorry to have to draw the Baptists over the coals in so much of my communications, but they represent the mirror reflection of the gospel of Christ, and thus a perfect likeness except that they have mixed up their left and right hands. They believe that it is prudence that should not only guide us into the hands of God, but that it is prudence that God appeals to when dealing with us, and therefore the prudent man will be the Christian. And this is very compelling. But once we consider the alternative, namely that the Holy Spirit does not come to sit upon our ear, but to possess our very hearts and thereby to change us so that we do not act prudently at all anymore (albeit also not imprudently), but rather we operate on a different plane entirely, namely we seek to love without counting, then our opinion changes entirely and we begin looking for miracles (transformation is a miracle) instead of bribes. It is really as simple as that. God teaches us how to wash the dishes without counting how many times we have washed the dishes since the last time someone else washed. {FN 7}

PPS And now what is to be done? The Wesleyans (and especially the youth) must be taught how to discover the transformation in their own lives. We must point out to them cases where they were able to give without counting and to love without condemnation, and be willing to accept from them the wildest expressions of this change, requiring only a personal derivation of the the effect from the Golden Rule, namely that the action which proceeded with spontaneity from my soul, some act of love, could have been expected with deliberation if a derivation were sought in the Golden Rule. The best example I can think of (I, who always struggles with examples) is the drunk who shares his treasure (his liquor) with another drunk who is in bad shape, i.e., needs a drink "real bad". This example is instructive for we are forced to look beyond the objective situation, namely that liquor is not good for a person, to the subjective constitution of the action, namely it was an act of sharing, which is a gift of God, and which will be followed up with a pressure to give up any demons and to become a full and whole person.

I am taken by this act because my first recognized act of love, in my awakened, though still raw state of transformation, was the realization that I needed to share my own poison/medicine, Mary Wanda (Louis Armstrong's term), with my circle of co-smokers.

And it is precisely here that the Baptist (or Jews or legalists, or whatever term you wish to use) stand in stark contrast to the transformed man: since Mary Wanda is debilitating, it is impossible that giving it to another could be an action of the Holy Spirit. What they miss, however, and continue always to miss, is that Jesus came to save the lost and dying; and all who hoard and will not share are the lost and dying, for "where your treasure is, there is your heart also." And that it is only these, like Zacchaeus, who have been transformed, that can attest to the power of God; the rest, those who are "not sick," must take it on faith. Experience comes only to the lost.

I think I perceive the essential difference here: the Baptist praises God originally and by virtue of the commands to do so which can be found in the scriptures, i.e., in obedience. The Wesleyans, on the other hand, praise God derivatively, i.e., as a result of (in appreciation for) the transforming changes made in their lives, i.e., in truth. The Baptist way is the way taken formally, as the Anglicans do; but it is only when the formal way becomes a spontaneous expression of the Holy Spirit can it be truly pleasing to God (compare this with Luther's "willing heart" of his Preface to Romans). Therefore God looks kindly upon the effort to praise him as an act of faith, but it is only when the "reluctant heart" has been replaced by the "loving heart" that God himself dances for joy. Hallelujah!

PPPS It is still very difficult for me to get in my mind exactly what it is that the non-transformationalist actually think and envision. Evidently this God/man Jesus comes and walks about doing good and giving warnings and dies and is resurrected and goes to heaven. Then the HS comes into the ear of the followers and instructs how the bible is to be written. Then other people are urged by this same HS to read the bible and then how to read it, i.e., there is a living hell of fire, for example. A frightened man becomes a Christian and can do what the HS tells him to, and get benefits of obedience, or not, and pay the costs of disobedience. It is a matter of personal choice. When you die you get a crown based on how well you looked for and complied with instructions. The skeptics and scoffers are brought before the throne, like in a great Colosseum and everyone laughs as Jesus finally gives them their come-upance and sends them down to hell, while shaking his head.

I guess this is it. This is what I understand. The one thing that is lacking is transformation from thinking like this to doing good for the sake of the good alone and without reference or recourse to bribes. It is here, I think that Immanuel Kant can be of immense help to the Wesleyans, in helping them understand that the religion described above is not transformationalist in the least, and that Hitler himself, without the least change in his heart, would have done good acts if he had merely calculated better and realized that there were more rewards in compliance with commands than in disobedience. It is an incredible concept that can only make the head of one who understands the difference between the moral and the prudent shake his head in wonderment and disbelief.

The world must be eternally thankful to Wesley for bringing the transformed heart to the fore in such clarity of power, and to Kant for doing the same thing to the heart in concept. Therefore, it seems: Kant thought the heart clearly, and Wesley presented the fact of the heart. The result, according to ordinary, Kantian thinking is this: there is a recognition of a fact, i.e., or a correspondence of an object (Wesley's heart) and a thought (Kant's [conceptual] heart [which really echos and develops the thesis of his "Landesmann", Luther]).

The most important task of the transformationalists today is to clearly differentiate their thinking from prudent thinking (which serves us so well in mundane matters). Secondly we must help pinpoint the ways in which God touches us so that people will not dismiss these as inane and stupid, e.g., when I see the hand of God in the drunk sharing his liquor, and when I am brought to share my own treasure, e.g., my boiled custard ice cream, and when I begin to rejoice that I can get two slices of pie and give the larger gladly to a friend or to a stranger with the same joy that a parent would with regard to his child. First the youth are to seek this joy and are to act it out almost in pantomime by sheer will power and in whatever cases they can, and to know that with the least effort God will come in, in an unexpected way, indeed in a way that might appear as a fluke even, and bring about a change such that joy in giving enters the life.

As for those who wonder what the purpose of Christ is, since Gandhi was not a Christian, we say authoritatively: no love can ever vanish, for God is love (also according to the epistles of John, I might add); but the Christian in the flesh (as opposed to the "Christian in his heart") has the incomparable glory of the memories of suffering for Christ which shall ring down through the ages every time we chitchat in heaven with Abba or our first born brother, Jesus.

PPPPS (I have much more difficult in stopping than I do in starting) John Wesley is not our authority, but merely a(n outstanding) example of the transformed man who is also extremely articulate and highly organized. Francis is the nearest facsimile (to Wesley) in history, I suppose. We all now, by virtue of the transformation, speak with the authority of the Holy Spirit (albeit we cannot be spontaneous, as was Jesus, but must always be able to derive our actions and our pronouncements from the Golden Rule to make sure [to ourselves even] that we are not being subjective).

To Sam's (otherwise very valid) objection with regard to subjectivity, I reply: the actions of the transformed man cannot be wrong (when derived from Matthew 7:12) because their rightness consists entirely in the derivation from the Golden Rule. Furthermore (and here perhaps we can turn to the authority of the biblical pronouncements per se where we are obligated as members of the household of faith to consult with other members regarding any question of faith and action, for it is really only where two or more are gather than we can expect to find Christ with us also. Interesting! we might say that we have the Holy Spirit as the possessor or our hearts, but then we become like Jesus [who was only accompanied by, but not possessed by, the Holy Spirit] only when we are in the company of kindred spirits in Christ. Interesting parallel that just arises to my mind during this very writing: Jesus and the Holy Spirit walk in perfect sync; Philip (possessed by the Holy Spirit) and Sam or Elizabeth (both likewise possessed) walk in perfect sync in Christ when we discuss and rationalize amongst one another, but certainly only with regard to actions, and not so much, I think with regard to thinking. [?? This needs development, but it suggests the sharing of experience, e.g., if you want to make a communal society with fellow Christians (as did the first Jerusalem church) we need to be able to practice giving without counting, etc., i.e., an exchange in truth, in absolute truth. "No condemnation now I dread" and indeed also not from fellow Christians, at least from those who are transformationalists.]

Conceptually and experientially the Wesleyan is equipped to set to rekindle the fire that swept England and America; we must now pray for the Holy Spirit to blow the embers to set it blazing again. {FN 9} Perhaps the fire will arise first in Africa, in the vicinity of the other great "book" religion, Islam; or in Asia on the turf of Buddhism and Hinduism, but it will come!

The reader may be interested in a more detailed consideration of the differences in thinking between Southern Baptist and Wesleyan, and also of the liberty and promise of the Gentile Christian.

FN 1. And many are there who think like this, who dismiss all personal evaluation in favor of the claims of the unknown bible writers (and in stark contrast to Jesus who did not hesitate to correct the scriptures with regard to what might be attributed to Abba (Daddy, God) and what was merely a man addition, viz Jesus comments about Moses on divorce [where, incidentally, Jesus asserts that the Garden story of is greater validity; and it is this story which tells us of the acquisition of "Kant's" moral law in the heart of every single man who was ever born. {This "validation" of the moral law of Kant is a highly important tool for the Christian /Wesleyan evangelist, for it enables us to speak to every heart}]).

In this regard I am very much taken by Calvin's Axiom whereby John Calvin, with whom I really have very little in common otherwise, is able to subjugate the passages of the bible to the clear pronouncements of reason (as spoken in the lingo of the science of his day). And there is no problem here. The moon is called larger than Saturn by Moses (= the writer of Genesis) because it looks larger (then and now) and was thought to be larger at that time by a simply inspection of the heavens. This is a common fact which is subject to science.

With the resurrection of Jesus, however and in contrast, we are talking about what science might call a "fluke," a sighting or reporting which cannot be confirmed (replicated) and therefore which is dismissed by science as probably subject to some other explanation if the event, so-called, could have been viewed from the beginning, e.g., the man Jesus was not really dead, or there is a plot, or the body was hidden, etc.. This thinking (which is necessary for the most elementary human experience to arise) is much like a sighting of a roach on my kitchen table which, upon a second and closer look, is found to be a raisin. Thus the "roach" existed only in my imagination and association, due probably to problems I might have been having with these little creatures of God in my kitchen. But, the Christian proclaims, it is also in the flukes that God himself appears, but since heshe is sovereign, heshe appears only as heshe wishes and without regard for the curiosity of mans (as scientists) to "catch" him in mid-flight, as it were. Therefore, without in any way suggesting that the roach actually became a raisin (which is an alternative hypothesis and which leads to an entirely different science and experience than we have now) the man of faith is able to say that sometimes what is considered merely a fluke is the entrance into time and space of the hand of God. These are called miracles by the Christians, and are ignored by science (unless science wants to explain how it is that people interpret flukes as the hand of God in a sociology of religion).

The Wesleyan asserts a tie-in with the reported resurrection, however, in that the transformation that has taken place and which is still in process within his own heart and flesh, is also a miracle and enables the Wesleyan to look to the reported resurrection as a fact. Return

FN 2. Actually the scriptures are no more than the experiences of the disciples, but are accorded more objectivity than any other personal experience because the early church attested to their authenticity [such that we might call them the "authoritative" experiences, but still always experiences, i.e., honest (but excited) mans telling their story of their sighting of Jesus in the flesh and the Holy Spirit in the soul]. This concept is important for we are able to dismiss inconsistencies in the tales while adhering thoroughly to the character of the figures of Jesus and the apostles. [This advantage is denied those who see a more dictation model on the order of Mohammed and Moses.]

In contrast, in the gnostic gospels we read of the baby Jesus' bath water giving sight to the blind into whose eyes it accidentally splashes. These stories point to the power of Jesus, but not to his love, and it is to this love, in particular, that the canonical gospels point and describe. These gnostic gospels then we (the church) reject due to their moral (or purity of love, as opposed to power) deficiency, i.e., they lead to prudence as opposed to transformation. But this authority is only possible if we (again the church, including here most especially the early church) did not already belong to the Holy Spirit such that, through the power of the individual transformation and the corporate creativity that it engenders, we are able to discern a priori that which is the voice of God! (thanx here also to Kant.) Return

FN 3. A challenge might be raised here as to knowing for sure what the Holy Spirit is saying as opposed to what the individual (who is bent to sin) is saying. But, as John Wesley so astutely pointed out, the question is not trying to convince another person that you are possessed of the Holy Spirit; rather we are actually dealing here entirely with a self inspection to see if I myself, individually, love God with my total being, whether I love my neighbor as I love myself, and seek diligently to overcome personal inhibitions in that effort to love, and whether I trust God through Christ to make up any short fall in my personal failure to love with the totality just described. Without the moral law (of Kant) and the man equivalent (Matthew 7:12) which is validated by that law, it would be impossible for free mans to exist, and instead, like Baptists and other spiritual materialists, we would be constantly trying to figure out what it is exactly that the monster wants us to do in order that we might get the blessings that accrue to those to do his will. [And I personally cannot think of a better picture of a hell than trying to interpret the whims of some god-like creature in order to avoid pain and to get as much pleasure as might be possible. For those who cannot think yet in these moral terms, e.g., those who are yet children and materialistic in their thinking, I would, for descriptive purposes, take recourse in physical pain and describe hell as a burning sensation.]

Incidentally I think that there are some "Christians" who do not look so much at the benefit to be derived from obeying God, but rather become zealots in what they perceive to be his cause, like the Jews that Paul wrote of in Romans 10. They are like divine SS troops who will do whatever God says (= what they *think* he says according to their understanding) and do not differentiate human understanding from divine guidance. For example, when the scriptures report that God ordered the destruction of the children of Jericho, these fanatics are ready to do the same thing to children or anyone today if they can but be persuaded that it is the will of God. I refer the reader to Giteux (I think his name was) the assassin of Garfield who was led by the "voice" of God to do this deed, which voice, in his (apparently very) honest opinion, was thoroughly vindicated by the scriptures (OT primarily), taking them as they are without seeking to find the human component in them as Jesus did with regard to divorce (Matthew 19:7-8).

Thus I contrast the zealots as the Absolute Children of God from the prudent ones, who are the Prudent Children of God, both of whom are obedient to the Will of God. Both of them I contrast morally with the Companions of Christ who are represented by the transformationalist who love for the sake of love alone and who speak authoritatively in the power of the Holy Spirit (remember: every act must be derived in conscience from the Golden Rule; or else it is tainted by ego!) Return

FN 4. Such a picture of God coming awake in the boy Jesus should be nothing less than uplifting and awe inspiring. We should assert authoritatively (with the early church) that the gnostic accounts of Jesus fashioning little clay birds and making them come to life are totally without basis. For Jesus to speak exemplicatively about the need for faith, he must have been willing to withhold the use of the power that the scriptures (and his musing about these scriptures with Mary) would have promised him, and never to use this power except when Abba called (the best picture of which is given in the picture of the wedding at Cana [where John makes a point of this being his first miracle]). It is only in this way that Jesus can understand our reluctance to believe and to speak to that reluctance and how to overcome it. [While technically speaking, thinking of Jesus as God, he might be able to understand our reluctance to believe by a direct, divine insight, this approach would be problematical from the standpoint of the man, and so therefore we could not really believe that he understood us. Thus we can say that it was in condescension to us that this Jesus took the way of a complete man, undifferentiated from any other man with this one exception: his mother was the perfectly obedient agent of the Holy Spirit. And thus God awakens himself as a man through the agencies of another man who, however, is a miracle. There seems to me to be increasing (rational) evidence for the theory of the Immaculate Conception, albeit for a different reason than advanced by our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters.] Return

FN 5. The scriptures do have this much authority,i.e., nothing can be added for salvation than what the earliest Christians recognized,i.e., a transformation of one's life through the Holy Spirit which is symbolized at the personal commitment ceremony in the church.

But the reason for this is not so much that the scriptures are ancient (for at one time they were not!) but rather because they accord with the moral law of pure reason with regard to the nature of a moral religion (as opposed to a prudent religion), namely that it is only a willingly loving heart that can be pleasing to God.* But then the NT goes no farther in this regard than to state that such a heart will be provided by God if it is sincerely sought in faith, and finally that the sincere seeking of that heart is counted, morally and spiritually speaking, for the actual attainment and fact of that heart.**

FN 6. One of the idiosyncrasies of this monster, so considered, is the fact that heshe is very concerned that we do not use that terminology, but rather speak of him as wonderful, marvelous, incomparable, i.e., all the "right" superlatives. It is not so important that we come to praise him spontaneously, i.e., as a result of an insight into his nature, but rather that we praise him loudly and with fervor. [Obviously I am here describing a particular view point but which cannot be expressed like this by the person holding that viewpoint for reason of fear as to retribution.] Return

FN 7. This, as every example and parable, is limited and not perfect. The literalist will try to wash dishes without counting. The point is, however, that what we do we do without reference to our personal advantage and do it freely and cheerfully (like the "good will" in Kant's Foundation to the Metaphysics of Morals and the "willing heart" of Luther's Preface to Paul's Romans which so stirred Wesley at Aldersgate). Oh, that the world (I included) might know the peace and joy which comes from giving without counting! Return

FN 8. I invite a perusal of my essay on the Golden Rule to examine what sort of person the Holy Spirit intends to populate the earth with (as his children) and therefore how Jesus becomes an example (for imitation) rather than a mere (cultic) hero (for adoration and praise). Return

FN 9. The Wesleyan is thoroughly Pauline and seeks the "better way" of the last verse of I Cor 12. While Wesleyans have no reason to doubt the intervention of God into history and as brining gifts (agreeing here with our Pentecostal brothers and sisters), we look to the transformed heart as the primary vehicle for the establishment of the kingdom of God in the world. We know that finally it is love alone that will reshape the world and produce the visible kingdom on earth, the New Jerusalem, where all dross is consumed by the fire of (the Holy Spirit inspired) personal experience (for our God is a consuming fire!). Return

FN 10. As given in the Conclusion to Kant's Critique of Practical Reason, namely:

"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing wonder and awe the more frequently and persistently they are considered: the starry heaven above me, and the moral law within me. Neither of these do I need to seek or merely suspect as encased in darkness or in extravagant imaginings outside of my field of vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciously of my existence." Return

To contact the author, please e-mail: pmr**kantwesley.com (note: the ** must be replaced by @)

To The Table Of Contents on Wesley